Qualitative Vs. Quantative Assignment

Given two quantitative and two qualitative research studies, minus  the abstracts, choose one quantitative study and one qualitative study  to analyze. Then, write a 250-word abstract for each one.

As you read each study, take notes that will help you write the abstracts. Consider:

• The purpose of the research.
• How the sample of participants was selected.
• The rationale given for the choice of a qualitative versus a quantitative approach.
• The main findings of the study.
• Any limitations of the study.
• Any recommendations made for further research.

In addition, keep a record of key words or concepts to add to each abstract. Qualitative Vs. Quantative Assignment

Document Format and Length

Each abstract should be 250 words in length.

MPH5200 Qualitative Study 2
Introduction
Obesity, a major risk factor for diabetes, affects more than one-third of adults in the UnitedStates and is associated with several demographic and socioeconomic factors, including lowincome (1). Several studies have found that obesity rates are generally higher among workingclass occupations than professional occupations, even after controlling for demographic factors(2,3).
From a sociological perspective, the environments in which people live and work are stronginfluences on obesity and diabetes (4,5). The work environment is especially important becausemany adults spend a significant amount of time at work and because obesity affects employersthrough reduced productivity and absenteeism as well as increased health care costs anddisability (6). Numerous studies acknowledge the negative health consequences of workplacefactors such as stress, low autonomy, poor coworker and managerial support, and unhealthyphysical work environments (2,7). These workplace risk factors may be more common in lowwage and working- class jobs and may explain some occupational differences in obesityprevalence (2,8).
Promoting health through worksite wellness programs is a national priority. The Affordable CareAct creates new incentives to promote employer wellness programs and encourageopportunities to support healthier workplaces (9). The National Institutes of Health and theCenters for Disease Control and Prevention have targeted worksites as a priority location forhealth interventions because they offer an efficient means of delivering and evaluating programsand provide opportunities to reach socially disadvantaged populations (10,11). However, datafor the effectiveness of workplace health programs are limited and may not be generalizable toall types of workers (6,11–13). National data show that blue-collar and service workers are lesslikely to work for an employer who offers health promotion activities and are less likely toparticipate in such programs when offered (14). Qualitative Vs. Quantative Assignment
This study focused on a little-studied health disparity — workplace health promotion among lowwage workers. The objective of the study was to examine through interviews and focus groups1) worksite culture, environment, and policies that influence healthy eating and physical activity;and 2) barriers that reduce worker participation in workplace health promotion programs. Anunderstanding of how the workplace affects health behaviors is can inform design of effectiveinterventions to reduce and prevent obesity.
Methods
We partnered with a large health care system and a national labor union representing retail
workers to recruit study participants. Qualitative data collection included interviews with keyinformants (eg, employer representatives, union leaders, benefits administrators) and workerfocus groups with both partner organizations. The workforce in the union was relativelyhomogenous with regard to income and included workers in jobs such as cashier andmerchandise stocker. Within the health care system, we targeted hospital work departmentsand locations that employed a large proportion of low-wage workers, including housekeepers,patient care technicians, and food service workers.
This study was approved by the Washington University institutional review board.
1
We interviewed 10 individuals from the union partner: 4 local union leaders, 5 storerepresentatives, and 1 health benefits administrator. Key informants were recruited in person orthrough email, and interviews were conducted in person or over the telephone. We asked aboutcurrent and previous wellness initiatives offered to employees, employee participation in theseinitiatives, and potential barriers to participation. Informants were also asked about workplacefactors that influenced health behaviors (ie, physical activity and healthy eating) and employeeattitudes about health and wellness.
We conducted a total of 9 focus groups involving 61 workers. Twenty hospital employees (4men and 16 women) participated in 4 groups. Forty-one unionized retail workers including 12men and 29 women participated in 5 focus groups. Focus group participants were recruitedthrough their work department, store, or local union hall. The research team attended unionmeetings to recruit members in person and posted flyers in break rooms at selected stores andhospital departments. We used a semistructured script to guide focus group discussions. Thescripts covered 11 broad domains with follow-up questions and prompts for each domain (Table1). All group discussions were audio recorded and transcribed. Transcriptions were entered intoQSR International’s NVivo 10 software (QSR International Pty Ltd), and all were coded by 2independent raters using a predefined code book based on the domains in the focus groupscript. After initial coding and consensus of all transcripts, we applied a phenomenological
approach for data analysis to find the “essence” or common themes across individual
experiences (15). The purpose of the thematic analysis was to answer 2 questions: “what
impacts healthy eating and physical activity” and “what can be modified at the workplace?”Through systematic review and discussion, codes were merged and grouped under mainthemes. Each transcript was re-read and re-coded for consistency. Qualitative Vs. Quantative Assignment
Results
Key informant interviews
The informants indicated that very few wellness programs related to weight management wereoffered to retail workers. The union-sponsored health plan covered some costs for nutritional
counseling, but that benefit was not well advertised. The employer-sponsored initiatives such asan onsite gym or weight loss programs were primarily available to employees in the corporateoffices, not to workers in retail stores. Both the union and employer representatives recognizedthe need for workplace wellness programs but were unsure about how to proceed withdeveloping and implementing a program to reach their diverse and widespread workforce.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER NOW

Informants described various programs available to employees but noted several barriers toeffective program implementation, including lack of management commitment at some levels,limited budgets, and communication and advertising limitations. One informant described resultsof a focus group conducted among employees of 1 hospital department regarding awareness ofexisting wellness programs and preferred methods of communication; results indicated that
most workers were unaware of the wellness program and did not regularly use company email,which was the primary method of communicating information about the wellness program.
Workers preferred to get information via personal email, text message, or in person. Workplacewellness efforts within the health care organization varied by worksite; some sites were moresuccessful in promoting and delivering their wellness initiatives than others. Informants thoughtthe size of organization and motivation of appointed representatives for each location influencedprogram success. An informant from a smaller hospital mentioned several successful wellnessinitiatives at her location, including an onsite gym, exercise classes, and 2 weight-losschallenges each year, and an informant from a larger hospital discussed struggles to find2
effective communication methods to reach all worker groups.
Worker focus groups
The final list of themes from the focus group analysis included 10 work-related themes and 10general themes (Table 2). Workers commonly discussed how their job characteristicscontributed to their health. For example, they mentioned that physical demands and stress of
their jobs left them too exhausted or unmotivated to exercise or plan healthy meals (Table 3).Many also described how the physical environment affected their health (eg, small work area,concrete floors). Past or current company programs and priorities was another common themeidentified, although details varied by group. Overall, the retail workers talked about lack of
wellness programs; some mentioned store weight-loss competitions and previous companycampaigns but felt that their employers and union did not prioritize health and wellness.
Responses of the health care worker groups differed; those working in a large hospital settingwere much less aware of wellness initiatives and felt less company or management support forhealth promotion. Many were aware of the onsite gym and the weight-loss program, but cost,
work schedule, and home responsibilities made it difficult to participate. Conversely, a groupworking in a smaller clinic felt tremendous upper-management support and described numerousworkplace supports, including a produce garden at the worksite, access to exercise equipment,afternoon stretch breaks, and healthy potluck lunches.
Workers also discussed schedules and breaks as having a significant impact on their healthyeating and physical activity. For many retail workers, their schedules varied week-to-week,
making it difficult to maintain any routine. Workers from both organizations stated that short andinterrupted breaks made it difficult to eat healthy. They discussed how food options —healthy orunhealthy and purchased or provided for free (eg, incentive lunches, holiday parties) — affectedtheir eating behaviors at work. Workers from both organizations felt that their workplaces had alack of quick, convenient, and low-cost healthy food options. Moreover, in all groups we heardthat free food was almost always unhealthy. Nearly all workers commented that social supportand accountability to coworkers would improve their ability to initiate and maintain healthybehaviors. Qualitative Vs. Quantative Assignment
General themes were those that may be related to the workplace but also extended intoworkers’ personal lives. For example, workers often discussed how intrapersonal factors (eg,
motivation, willpower) and home life (eg, responsibilities, family support) affected their healthbehaviors both in the workplace and at home. Workers often discussed how their jobsinfluenced their health in terms of not having the money, time, or energy to exercise or planhealthy meals. Some workers also discussed the roles that health issues and transportationplayed in initiating and sustaining healthy behaviors.
Discussion
This study highlights factors related to obesity as described by 2 low-wage work groups; ourfindings are consistent with results from a similar study among low-wage workers in variousindustries (8). The workplace was often viewed as a barrier to healthy eating and physical
activity; however, workers supported the concept of workplace health promotion and offeredsuggestions for overcoming many of the identified barriers. As demonstrated in this study, theworkplace may be effective in engaging populations at risk for obesity and related illnesses,
though it may be necessary to go beyond traditional workplace wellness approaches. Usingmore innovative methods may increase program reach, effectiveness, and sustainability.
Policy changes have increasingly been recognized as essential components of worksite healthpromotion (16) and are more sustainable than individual-level behavior interventions (17).
3
Policies promoting a culture and environment conducive to reducing obesity can be a strongcatalyst to behavior change. These can include top-level policies, such as offering a health careplan that has wellness options or implementing organizational policies that provide for access tolow-cost healthy foods at the worksite, encourage active transportation to and from work, orallow for flexible work schedules to encourage lunch or break-time physical activity. The workenvironment (both indoor and outdoor) is also an important component of behavior change andcan have a significant impact on behavior choice (18). An environment that encourages lesssedentary work and more physical activity could include well-placed and maintained stairwellsfor stair use versus elevators or distant parking.
Changes solely in the workplace environment may not be enough to encourage healthybehaviors (19). Health behavior decisions are affected by the social context in which they aremade, such that the social support and social norms surrounding a health issue have asubstantial effect on how that health behavior is perceived. Changing social norms and fosteringa supportive work environment for the desired behavior is a necessary complement to the otherlevels of intervention. Social norms have been studied as a way to promote nutrition (20) andphysical activity (21).
Workplace participatory approaches may foster social support and help to overcomeorganizational and employee barriers to program success. Most worksite weight-loss programshave relied on a top-down approach, rather than a participatory approach based on employeeinvolvement in the design of interventions (22). In workplaces where employees generally havelittle influence on their work environment, similar to those sampled in this study, participatoryapproaches can result in better program implementation and subsequent health improvement(22). The recently described Healthy Workplace Participatory Program (HWPP) includes workenvironment changes, as well as healthy eating and physical activity interventions (23). A small
study based on HWPP found promising changes in behaviors and weight loss in a pre–post
evaluation of a participatory worksite intervention (24). To our knowledge, this HWPP-basedstudy is the only controlled study to date using a worker health participatory program to attainweight loss. Future research should implement and evaluate workplace participatoryinterventions for weight loss.
Workplace wellness programs should also use effective communication strategies to engageworkers from diverse work groups and backgrounds. As demonstrated with the health caresystem in this study, many low-wage workers were not aware of the wellness programs that
were available to them. The same programs, however, have good participation from other workgroups in the health care organization, primarily because of the method of communication.
Rapid changes in information technology have enabled new interventions that use mobiletelephones and other mobile devices (mHealth). These techniques show great promise forweight reduction in low-income populations (25), and such interventions are readily scalable tolarger populations (13).
Although we did not directly ask about incentives, several participants discussed monetaryincentives as a possible motivator to eat healthy and exercise. The use of incentives is commonin workplace wellness programs; employers could maximize the benefits of incentives byincorporating lessons from behavioral economics. For example, the increasingly popular

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER NOW

approach of delivering incentives through health insurance premium adjustments is unlikely tobe as effective as more frequent and immediate rewards for behavior. This is because peopletend to discount the future, meaning that they respond more readily to immediate than delayedcosts and benefits (26). The participants in our study commonly discussed cost as a barrier toeating healthy and exercising. As suggested by others (27), low-income workers may be morelikely to change and sustain healthy behaviors if provided with financial support for healthy foodand participation in other weight-loss activities. Employers should also be aware of the4
limitations of incentives for behavior change. Qualitative Vs. Quantative Assignment
Recent reviews have shown behavioral effects to be relatively short-lived after incentives areremoved (27), and considerable attrition is found in workplace programs for weight loss (28).
More research is needed to determine the optimal timing, magnitude, and structure of
incentives, but results to date suggest that incentives may need to be an ongoing feature of theworkplace to have maximum impact.
Finally, employers may consider integrating traditional occupational safety and health programs(ie, those that focus on health hazards unique to the workplace) with health promotion andwellness programs (ie, those that focus exclusively on lifestyle factors off the job). The Total
Worker Health program was launched by the National Institute of Occupational Safety andHealth (NIOSH) to support the development and adoption of research and best practices tointegrate these approaches and address health and safety risks at multiple levels, including thework environment (physical and organizational) and individual behaviors. This integrativeapproach may lead to greater adoption of interventions by management and workers and henceto improvements in the health of workers (11), but more research is needed to evaluate both thedevelopment process and the effectiveness of integrated programs (29).
The results of this study can help inform future worksite interventions for low-wage workers;
however, our study has several limitations. First, we collected data from key informants whocould be contacted or agreed to be interviewed. Second, although the participants in the focusgroups represented a range of positions and worker groups, they were limited to those availableduring the implementation of the focus group discussions. Although using a conveniencesample may be a limitation, those who elected to participate in the interviews or focus groupswere able to provide helpful insights on the topic. Future intervention planning would need to bepreceded by additional input from a broader participant base. Third, the information we collectedmay not be generalizable to other health conditions or work settings. Despite these limitations,the key informants and focus group participants provided rich and potentially actionableinformation on addressing obesity at the worksites of these worker populations.
Workplaces can provide an effective venue for engaging low-income populations at risk forobesity and related illnesses. Results of this study suggest that future worksite interventions forlow-wage workers can improve reach, effectiveness, and sustainability if they embrace moreinnovative methods than those used in current workplace wellness programs. Futureinterventions should address workplace policies and environment and social norms that affecthealth behavior decisions. Communication strategies and financial incentives should be betteraligned with the needs of low- wage workers. Workplace participatory programs are a promisingapproach to engage workers in health improvement. Qualitative Vs. Quantative Assignment
References
Ogden CL, Lamb MM, Carroll MD, Flegal KM. Obesity and socioeconomic status in adults:
United States, 2005–2008. NCHS Data Brief 2010;(51):1–8. PubMed(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21211166)
Luckhaupt SE, Cohen MA, Li J, Calvert GM. Prevalence of obesity among US workers andassociations with occupational factors. Am J Prev Med 2014;46(3):237–48. CrossRef
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2013.11.002) PubMed
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24512862)
Bonauto DK, Lu D, Fan ZJ. Obesity prevalence by occupation in Washington State, Behavioral
Risk Factor Surveillance System. Prev Chronic Dis 2014;11:E04. CrossRef
5
(http://dx.doi.org/10.5888/pcd11.130219) PubMed
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24406093)
Eyler AA, Brownson RC, Schmid TL. Making strides toward active living: the policy researchperspective. J Public Health Manag Pract 2013;19(3 Suppl 1):S5–7. CrossRef
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0b013e31828c826c) PubMed
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23529056)
Lovasi GS, Hutson MA, Guerra M, Neckerman KM. Built environments and obesity indisadvantaged populations. Epidemiol Rev 2009;31(1):7–20. CrossRef
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxp005) PubMed
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19589839)
Heinen L, Darling H. Addressing obesity in the workplace: the role of employers. Milbank Q2009;87(1):101–22. CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2009.00549.x)PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19298417)
Solovieva S, Lallukka T, Virtanen M, Viikari-Juntura E. Psychosocial factors at work, long workhours, and obesity: a systematic review. Scand J Work Environ Health 2013;39(3):241–58. CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3364) PubMed
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23592217)
Champagne N, Abreu M, Nobrega S, Goldstein-Gelb M, Montano M, Lopez I, et al. Studyreport: obesity/overweight and the role of working conditions: a qualitative, participatoryinvestigation. Lowell (MA): Center for the Promotion of Health in the New EnglandWorkplace; 2012. p. 25.
US Department of Labor. Fact sheet: the Affordable Care Act and Wellness Programs; 2014http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/fswellnessprogram.html. Accessed December 18,
2014.
Special Committee on Health Productivity and Disability Management, American College of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Healthy workforce/healthy economy: the roleof health, productivity, and disability management in addressing the nation’s health carecrisis: why an emphasis on the health of the workforce is vital to the health of theeconomy. J Occup Environ Med 2009;51(1):114–9. CrossRef
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e318195dad2) PubMed
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19136880)
NIOSH. Research Compendium: The NIOSH Total Worker Health Program: seminal researchpapers 2012. Washington (DC): US Department of Health and Human Services, PublicHealth Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2012-146.
Goetzel RZ, Henke RM, Tabrizi M, Pelletier KR, Loeppke R, Ballard DW, et al. Do workplacehealth promotion (wellness) programs work? J Occup Environ Med 2014;56(9):927–34.CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000276) PubMed(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25153303)
Rongen A, Robroek SJ, van Lenthe FJ, Burdorf A. Workplace health promotion: a meta-analysisof effectiveness. Am J Prev Med 2013;44(4):406–15. CrossRef
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.12.007) PubMed
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23498108)
Grosch JW, Alterman T, Petersen MR, Murphy LR. Worksite health promotion programs in theUS: factors associated with availability and participation. Am J Health Promot
6
1998;13(1):36–45. CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-13.1.36) PubMed(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10186933)
Padgett D. Qualitative methods in social work research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage;
2008.
Kahn-Marshall JL, Gallant MP. Making healthy behaviors the easy choice for employees: areview of the literature on environmental and policy changes in worksite healthpromotion. Health Educ Behav 2012;39(6):752–76. CrossRef
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1090198111434153) PubMed
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22872583)
Brownson RC, Haire-Joshu D, Luke DA. Shaping the context of health: a review of
environmental and policy approaches in the prevention of chronic diseases. Annu RevPublic Health 2006;27 (1):341–70. CrossRef
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102137) PubMed(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16533121)
Saarloos D, Kim J-E, Timmermans H. The built environment and health: introducing individual
space–time behavior. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2009;6(6):1724–43. CrossRef
(http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph6061724) PubMed
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19578457)
Gorman E, Ashe MC, Dunstan DW, Hanson HM, Madden K, Winkler EAH, et al. Does an“activity-permissive” workplace change office workers’ sitting and activity time? PLoSONE 2013;8(10) e76723. CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0076723)PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24098555)
Ball K, Jeffery RW, Abbott G, McNaughton SA, Crawford D. Is healthy behavior contagious:
associations of social norms with physical activity and healthy eating. Int J Behav NutrPhys Act 2010;7:86. PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21138550)
McEachan RRC, Lawton RJ, Jackson C, Conner M, Meads DM, West RM. Testing a workplacephysical activity intervention: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr PhysAct 2011;8:29. PubMed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21481265)
Punnett L, Warren N, Henning R, Nobrega S, Cherniack M; CPH-NEW Research Team.
Participatory ergonomics as a model for integrated programs to prevent chronic disease.J Occup Environ Med 2013;55(12, Suppl):S19–24. CrossRef
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000040) sPubMed
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24284754)
Henning R, Warren N, Roberston M, Faghri P, Cherniack M. CPH-NEW Research Team.
Workplace health protection and promotion through participatory ergonomics: anintegrated approach. Public Health Rep 2009;124(Suppl 1):26–35. PubMed(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19618804)
Ferraro L, Faghri PD, Henning R, Cherniack M; Center for the Promotion of Health in the NewEngland Workplace Team. Workplace-based participatory approach to weight loss forcorrectional employees. J Occup Environ Med 2013;55(2):147–55. CrossRef
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e3182717cd4) PubMed
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23291996)
Appel LJ, Clark JM, Yeh HC, Wang NY, Coughlin JW, Daumit G, et al. Comparativeeffectiveness of weight-loss interventions in clinical practice. N Engl J Med2011;365(21):1959–68. CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1108660) PubMed(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22085317)
7
Volpp KG, Asch DA, Galvin R, Loewenstein G. Redesigning employee health incentives —lessons from behavioral economics. N Engl J Med 2011;365(5):388–90. CrossRef
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1105966) PubMed
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21812669)
Purnell JQ, Gernes R, Stein R, Sherraden MS, Knoblock-Hahn A. A systematic review of
financial incentives for dietary behavior change. J Acad Nutr Diet 2014;114(7):1023–35.Cawley J, Price J. Outcomes in a program that offers financial rewards for weight loss. NBERworking paper series; 2009. p. 169–233.
Pronk NP. Integrated worker health protection and promotion programs: overview andperspectives on health and economic outcomes. J Occup Environ Med 2013;55(12,
Suppl):S30–7. CrossRef (http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000031) PubMed(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24284747) Qualitative Vs. Quantative Assignment
8

Controversy Associated With Dissociative Disorders

The DSM-5 is a diagnostic tool. It has evolved over the decades, as have the classifications and criteria within its pages. It is used not just for diagnosis, however, but also for billing, access to services, and legal cases. Not all practitioners are in agreement with the content and structure of the DSM-5, and dissociative disorders are one such area. These disorders can be difficult to distinguish and diagnose. There is also controversy in the field over the legitimacy of certain dissociative disorders, such as dissociative identity disorder, which was formerly called multiple personality disorder.  Controversy Associated With Dissociative Disorders

Controversy Associated With Dissociative Disorders

The DSM-5 is a diagnostic tool. It has evolved over the decades, as have the classifications and criteria within its pages. It is used not just for diagnosis, however, but also for billing, access to services, and legal cases. Not all practitioners are in agreement with the content and structure of the DSM-5, and dissociative disorders are one such area. These disorders can be difficult to distinguish and diagnose. There is also controversy in the field over the legitimacy of certain dissociative disorders, such as dissociative identity disorder, which was formerly called multiple personality disorder. Controversy Associated With Dissociative Disorders

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER NOW

In this Assignment, you will examine the controversy surrounding dissociative disorders. You will also explore clinical, ethical, and legal considerations pertinent to working with patients with these disorders.

 

To Prepare

• Review this week’s Learning Resources on dissociative disorders.
• Use the Walden Library to investigate the controversy regarding dissociative disorders. Locate at least three scholarly articles that you can use to support your Assignment.

 

The Assignment (2–3 pages)

• Explain the controversy that surrounds dissociative disorders.
• Explain your professional beliefs about dissociative disorders, supporting your rationale with at least three scholarly references from the literature.
• Explain strategies for maintaining the therapeutic relationship with a client that may present with a dissociative disorder.
• Finally, explain ethical and legal considerations related to dissociative disorders that you need to bring to your practice and why they are important.

PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS AS INDICATED BELOW:

 

1). ZERO (0) PLAGIARISM.

 

2). AT LEAST 5 REFERENCES, NO MORE THAN 5 YEARS (WITHIN 5YRS, OR LESS THAN 5YRS)

 

3).  PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED: Rubric details and  Assignment details/Instructions.

 

4). Please review and follow the grading rubric details, and include each component in the assignment as required. Also, follow the APA 7 writing rules and style/Format. Controversy Associated With Dissociative Disorders

 

Thank you.

 

 

CASE STUDY 1: Headaches

Week 9 case study

CASE STUDY 1: Headaches A 20-year-old male complains of experiencing intermittent headaches. The headaches diffuse all over the head, but the greatest intensity and pressure occur above the eyes and spreads through the nose, cheekbones, and jaw.

The Case Study Assignment should be in the Episodic/Focused SOAP Note format rather than the traditional narrative style format. (attached)

• Consider what history would be necessary to collect from the patient in the case study you were assigned.

• Consider what physical exams and diagnostic tests would be appropriate to gather more information about the patient’s condition. How would the results be used to make a diagnosis?
• Identify at least five possible conditions that may be considered in a differential diagnosis for the patient. CASE STUDY 1: Headaches
• Use APA format and validate the diagnosis with references (updated on the last 5 years)

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER NOW

Main diagnosis.

• Acute Sinusitis

 

For the differential diagnosis I want you to consider:

 

• Common cold
• Allergy rhinitis
• Migraine without aura
• Tensional headache.
• temporomandibular joint or jaw pain

Episodic/Focused SOAP Note Template

 

Patient Information:

Initials, Age, Sex, Race

S.

CC (chief complaint) a BRIEF statement identifying why the patient is here – in the patient’s own words – for instance “headache”, NOT “bad headache for 3 days”. CASE STUDY 1: Headaches

HPI: This is the symptom analysis section of your note. Thorough documentation in this section is essential for patient care, coding, and billing analysis. Paint a picture of what is wrong with the patient. Use LOCATES Mnemonic to complete your HPI. You need to start EVERY HPI with age, race, and gender (e.g., 34-year-old AA male). You must include the seven attributes of each principal symptom in paragraph form not a list. If the CC was “headache”, the LOCATES for the HPI might look like the following example:

Location: head

Onset: 3 days ago

Character: pounding, pressure around the eyes and temples

Associated signs and symptoms: nausea, vomiting, photophobia, phonophobia

Timing: after being on the computer all day at work

Exacerbating/ relieving factors: light bothers eyes, Aleve makes it tolerable but not completely better

Severity: 7/10 pain scale

Current Medications: include dosage, frequency, length of time used and reason for use; also include OTC or homeopathic products.

Allergies: include medication, food, and environmental allergies separately (a description of what the allergy is ie angioedema, anaphylaxis, etc. This will help determine a true reaction vs intolerance).

PMHx: include immunization status (note date of last tetanus for all adults), past major illnesses and surgeries. Depending on the CC, more info is sometimes needed

Soc Hx: include occupation and major hobbies, family status, tobacco & alcohol use (previous and current use), any other pertinent data. Always add some health promo question here – such as whether they use seat belts all the time or whether they have working smoke detectors in the house, living environment, text/cell phone use while driving, and support system.

Fam Hx: illnesses with possible genetic predisposition, contagious or chronic illnesses. Reason for death of any deceased first degree relatives should be included. Include parents, grandparents, siblings, and children. Include grandchildren if pertinent.

ROS: cover all body systems that may help you include or rule out a differential diagnosis You should list each system as follows: General: Head: EENT: etc. You should list these in bullet format and document the systems in order from head to toe.

Example of Complete ROS:

GENERAL:  Denies weight loss, fever, chills, weakness or fatigue.

HEENT:  Eyes: Denies visual loss, blurred vision, double vision or yellow sclerae. Ears, Nose, Throat:  Denies hearing loss, sneezing, congestion, runny nose or sore throat. CASE STUDY 1: Headaches

SKIN:  Denies rash or itching.

CARDIOVASCULAR:  Denies chest pain, chest pressure or chest discomfort. No palpitations or edema.

RESPIRATORY:  Denies shortness of breath, cough or sputum.

GASTROINTESTINAL:  Denies anorexia, nausea, vomiting or diarrhea. No abdominal pain or blood.

GENITOURINARY:  Burning on urination. Pregnancy. Last menstrual period, MM/DD/YYYY.

NEUROLOGICAL:  Denies headache, dizziness, syncope, paralysis, ataxia, numbness or tingling in the extremities. No change in bowel or bladder control.

MUSCULOSKELETAL:  Denies muscle, back pain, joint pain or stiffness.

HEMATOLOGIC:  Denies anemia, bleeding or bruising.

LYMPHATICS:  Denies enlarged nodes. No history of splenectomy.

PSYCHIATRIC:  Denies history of depression or anxiety.

ENDOCRINOLOGIC:  Denies reports of sweating, cold or heat intolerance. No polyuria or polydipsia.

ALLERGIES:  Denies history of asthma, hives, eczema or rhinitis.

O.

Physical exam: From head-to-toe, include what you see, hear, and feel when doing your physical exam. You only need to examine the systems that are pertinent to the CC, HPI, and History. Do not use “WNL” or “normal.” You must describe what you see. Always document in head-to-toe format i.e. General: Head: EENT: etc.

Diagnostic results: Include any labs, x-rays, or other diagnostics that are needed to develop the differential diagnoses (support with evidenced and guidelines)

A.

Differential Diagnoses (list a minimum of 5 differential diagnoses).Your primary or presumptive diagnosis should be at the top of the list. For each diagnosis, provide supportive documentation with evidence-based guidelines.

This section is not required for the assignments in this course (NURS 6512) but will be required for future courses.

References

You are required to include at least five evidence-based peer-reviewed journal articles or evidenced based guidelines which relates to this case to support your diagnostics and differentials diagnoses. Be sure to use correct APA 7^th edition formatting. CASE STUDY 1: Headaches

 

Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation And Patient Case Presentation

For this Assignment, you will document information about a patient that you examined during the last 3 weeks, using the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Template provided. You will then use this note to develop and record a case presentation for this patient. Be sure to incorporate any feedback you received on your Week 3 and Week 6 case presentations into this final presentation for the course.

HISTORY: Ms. Okonofua is a 55-year-old woman. Her chief complaint is, “I have been having

difficulty sleeping and anxiety. These has been going on for years. My anxiety and jitteriness get

worse when I drink caffeine. I usually don’t sleep for more than 5 hours. I cannot stay asleep. There

are times that I will not sleep for 3 days and I will be very irritable, unable to concentrate or function

the next day. “. Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation And Patient Case Presentation

Anxiety Symptoms:

Ms. Okonofua exhibits symptoms of anxiety. Her anxiety symptoms have been present for

years.

Ms. Okonofua describes the following anxiety symptoms:

*Chest pain or discomfort when under stress.

*Diarrhea

*Increase in Heart Rate

*Sensations of muscular tension

Insomina symptoms

*Sleep disturbance, she has difficulty staying asleep. she has difficulty falling asleep.

*Trembling or shaking

*Excessive worrying

Ms. Okonofua’s symptoms are occurring daily. She reports previous episodes of anxiety

symptoms.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER NOW

Severity is estimated to be medi

 

um based on Ms. Okonofua’s risk of morbidity without

treatment and her description of interference with functioning. Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation And Patient Case Presentation

Cardiovascular:

*Hypertension

Eyes:

*Corrective Lenses are used: (Glasses)

Review of all other systems reviewed were negative.

PAST PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY:

Okonofua, Deborah

9/30/1964DOB:

6/9/2020

ID:

page 2 of 5

1000010715483

Complete Evaluation: Continued

medicaid ID:

Room No.

Psychiatric Hospitalization:

Ms. Okonofua has never been psychiatrically hospitalized.

Outpatient Treatment:

Has never received outpatient mental health treatment. Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation And Patient Case Presentation

Suicidal/Self Injurious:

Ms. Okonofua has no history of suicidal or self injurious behavior.

Psychotropic Medication History: lexapro (caused weight gain), ambien, benadryl

Prior Psychiatric Disorder:

She has a history of anxiety symptoms.

SOCIAL/DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY:

Ms. Okonofua is a 55 year old woman. Born and raised in Nigeria, migrated to USA years ago.

Married, has 4 children (1 set of twins), a nurse practitioner.

Abuse/Neglect:

There is no known history of physical, sexual or emotional abuse.

There is no known history of physical, medical, or emotional neglect.

Criminal Justice History:

Ms. Okonofua has never been arrested or incarcerated, has no history of violence, and is

not currently under any kind of court supervision.

Coping Strengths:

Spiritual:

*Religious Beliefs are a Strength

*Spiritual Beliefs are a Strength. “Pastor’s wife”.

Criminal Justice History:

Ms. Okonofua has never been arrested or incarcerated, has no history of violence, and is

not currently under any kind of court supervision.

Substance Abuse:

Ms. Okonofua denies any history of substance abuse.

FAMILY HISTORY:

Mother known to have anxiety.

Ms. Okonofua’s family psychiatric history is otherwise negative. There is no other history of

psychiatric disorders, psychiatric treatment or hospitalization, suicidal behaviors or substance

abuse in closely related family members.

Okonofua, Deborah

9/30/1964DOB:

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER NOW

Assignment 2: Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation and Patient Case Presentation

For this Assignment, you will document information about a patient that you examined during the last 3 weeks, using the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Template provided. You will then use this note to develop and record a case presentation for this patient. Be sure to incorporate any feedback you received on your Week 3 and Week 6 case presentations into this final presentation for the course.

Select a patient that you examined during the last 3 weeks who presented with a disorder for which you have not already conducted an evaluation in Weeks 3 or 6. (For instance, if you selected a patient with OCD in Week 6, you must choose a patient with another type of disorder for this week.) Conduct a Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation on this patient using the template provided in the Learning Resources. There is also a completed exemplar document in the Learning Resources so that you can see an example of the types of information a completed evaluation document should contain. All psychiatric evaluations must be signed, and each page must be initialed by your Preceptor. When you submit your document, you should include the complete Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation as a Word document, as well as a PDF/images of each page that is initialed and signed by your Preceptor. You must submit your document using SafeAssign. Please Note: Electronic signatures are not accepted. If both files are not received by the due date, Faculty will deduct points per the Walden Late Policies.

Then, based on your evaluation of this patient, develop a video case presentation that includes chief complaint; history of present illness; any pertinent past psychiatric, substance use, medical, social, family history; most recent mental status exam; and current psychiatric diagnosis including differentials that were ruled out.

Include at least five (5) scholarly resources to support your assessment and diagnostic reasoning.

Assignment

Record yourself presenting the complex case for your clinical patient. In your presentation:

Present the full case. Include chief complaint; history of present illness; any pertinent past psychiatric, substance use, medical, social, family history; most recent mental status exam; and current psychiatric diagnosis including differentials that were ruled out.

Report normal diagnostic results as the name of the test and “normal” (rather than specific value). Abnormal results should be reported as a specific value.

Be succinct in your presentation, and do not exceed 8 minutes. Address the following:

Subjective: What details did the patient provide regarding their personal and medical history? What are their symptoms of concern? How long have they been experiencing them, and what is the severity? How are their symptoms impacting their functioning?

Objective: What observations did you make during the interview and review of systems?

Assessment: What were your differential diagnoses? Provide a minimum of three (3) possible diagnoses. List them from highest to lowest priority. What was your primary diagnosis, and why?

Reflection notes: What would you do differently in a similar patient evaluation?